Just wondering what the general approach/preference is for a typical Study Programme learner who will be studying a vocational qualification along with maths and english but also doing some timetabled non-accredited preparation for work activity – working on their presentation skills, cv writing, interview techniques etc. Do you add the prep for work activity as an aim using a generic aim class code or just leave it off the ILR? Same question for other types of non-accredited activity that isn’t part of the learner’s qualification.September 14, 2020 at 10:02 am #463526
You would use class codes in the ILR to evidence the planned timetable hours requirement, see the guidance below.
8.1 Planned hours fields at learner level
740. There are two fields in the ILR recorded at learner level to collect the planned timetabled hours for the learner at the start of their study programme:
Planned learning hours: this field should be completed with the total planned timetabled hours for the learner, for the year, to be spent on DfE approved qualifications only.
Planned employability, enrichment and pastoral hours: this field includes all other planned, timetabled hours included in the study programme that are not included in the Planned learning hours field. The hours for non-regulated learning aims including work experience/placement aims (‘Learning Aim Class Codes’ document located in Section 14 Related Links to Documents and Information section) are recorded in this field.
HTHSeptember 14, 2020 at 10:27 am #463531
For 16-19s my approach has always been to recognise discrete non regulated activity such as employability training sessions as an aim on the ILR – so for example if a learner undertakes weekly sessions of employability training – non-accredited, we would have a scheme of work for that, timetabled sessions etc and register it as an aim on the ILR. This makes it easy to identify exactly what the learner is doing to justify any claim of EEP hours. But I’ve seen other comments on here suggesting you shouldn’t (or don’t need to) recognise that activity as an ILR aim, but still claim the associated EEP hours as it is valid fundable activity, and obviously have other means to easily show what exactly you are claiming EEP hours for. So just wondering what the typical approach is and is there any right or wrong on this?September 14, 2020 at 12:08 pm #463543
The ILR Specifications are clear: Where the provider is delivering non-regulated provision, they should use one of the learning aim references available in the LARS database for non-regulated provision. The different classes of codes are detailed in the Learning Aim Class Codes document.
HTHSeptember 14, 2020 at 12:18 pm #463546
We don’t return learning aims for all EEP activity, but obviously claim the hours.
I thought there was an unwritten rule that you didn’t need to as it just clogs up DSAT etc and auditors aren’t bothered. Seemed to think there was something ‘official’ about this a few years ago but in what format and who from i don’t know.
Interested to know what everyone else does.
P.S have been audited a couple of times with this approach and had no issues
September 14, 2020 at 4:09 pm #463598
- This reply was modified 4 months, 1 week ago by jessicar.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.